City of Huntington Beach
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Robin Estanislau, City Clerk
DATE: July 31, 2023
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 - CORRECTIONS TO CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES DATED JULY 18, 2023
Please find attached a request for corrections to the July 18, 2023 City Council/Public Financing Authority minutes submitted by Ariel Strauss with Greenfire Law, PC. Staff has reviewed the request and approves of the suggested changes, with one revision to 2) as depicted in red text.
If approved, Council action in the August 1 minutes will be recorded as "approved as amended by supplemental communication."
Attachment: Communication from Greenfire Law, PC
Ariel Strauss, Of-Counsel
2748 Adeline Street, Ste. A
GREENFIRE Berkeley, CA 94703
510-900-9502 x 702
LAW, PC [email protected]
www.greenfirelaw.com
August 1, 2023
Via Electronic Mail
To: [email protected]
RE: Correction to July 18th Meeting Minutes (August 1 Council Meeting Agenda Item 8) Dear Mayor Strickland, Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark, and Council Members Burns, McKeon, Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton:
I am writing on behalf of Christina Price requesting that the Council amend the proposed Minutes concerning July 18, 2023 Agenda Item 17 concerning denial of AT&T's application for CUP No. 23-006 to construct a wireless communication facility at 8101 Slater Avenue.
Ms. Price greatly appreciates the Council's careful consideration of the cell tower at the previous meeting and having the courage to come to the right conclusion in the best interest of the community and in accordance with the Zoning Code. At that meeting, the Council correctly upheld the appeal because it determined that it could not make the findings required by Zoning Code Section 241.10(A)(3) for issuance of a conditional use permit. Given that AT&T may be considering filing suit, which under federal law must be done with 30 days of the denial letter that was issued on July 26, 2023, providing minutes that clearly reflect the robust record supporting the Council's decision is particularly important.
In general, the proposed Minutes are impressively detailed and accurate. Some portions are unclear and I recommend the following four additions:
1) Page 14 of the draft minutes summarizes Senior Planner Hayden Beckman's presentation.
Critically, according to the video recording, Mr. Beckman added: "I would like to clarify for the record and for the Council that the appellant's letter in this specific instance was correct. There is a facility that is 840 feet due west of the subject site. This is a roof- mounted facility that was modified in 2020."
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr5dHArmJSc at 2:17.) Given that AT&T's failure 1/4
to consider alternative sites was central to the Council's denial decision, the second full paragraph of page 18 of the Minutes should be amended to conclude:
Senior Planner Beckman clarified that there is an existing roof-mounted facility 840 feet due west of the subject site that was not identified in the application or staff report; staff did not believe that roof-mounted facilities were required to be considered for collocation when considering an application for a free-standing facility.
2) The proposed Minutes summarize Carol Jean Zeno's public remarks in a potentially misleading way. The Minutes state "Ms. Zeno stated to the best of her knowledge Huntington Beach Community Church is the only entity that responded to the inquiry for locations." However, following that statement, she relayed that at the Planning Commission hearing, a commissioner stated that "he knows some of the owners of these places on Beach Blvd. I'll help you; I'll go talk to them. I'm sure they'd like easy money." (Id. at 2:31.) The underlined portion of the following text should be added to the final paragraph of page 17:
Ms. Zeno stated to the best of her knowledge Huntington Beach Community Church is the only entity that responded to the inquiry for locations. But a Planning Commission had expressed his believe that owners of the other sites would be interested in "easy money" if properly contacted, and he had offered to facilitate that.
City staff recommends: "Ms. Zeno stated to the best of her knowledge Huntington Beach Community Church is the only entity that responded to the inquiry for locations, and that a Planning Commissioner had offered to facilitate discussions with other commercial property owners that would be interested in "easy money" by hosting the proposed facility." 3) For a more complete understanding of the intention of the Council, slightly more context should be added to the second paragraph on page 18, which reflects Senior Planner Beckman's actual statement (Id. at 3:38), with this underlined text added:
Senior Planner Beckman read the three required findings and explained that it is staff's interpretation that the proposed motion is that the third required finding for approving a CUP, namely the satisfaction of all applicable provisions in the Zoning Code, could not be met.
4) In the second paragraph on page 18, For grammatical clarity, the final full paragraph of the Item 17 Minutes should be revised to read (with strike-through text deleted and underlined text added):
A motion was made by McKeon, second Van Der Mark to deny approval of CUP 23-006 on account of being unable to make the required finding with finding of denial found in Zoning Code Section 241.10 A. 3., "The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district 2/4
in which it would be located."
3/4
These corrections and clarifications will make for a more complete and readily understandable record, and I request that the Council approve these changes.
Respectfully,
GREENFIRE LAW, PO
Ariel Strauss, Of-Counsel
4/4